Username:

Password:

Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: AMD 64 FX  (Read 5235 times)
TX-BlackKnight
Reserve
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 425


View Profile WWW
« on: September 26, 2003, 01:54:52 pm »

Seriously considering taking the plung here. Just shelled out $540 for my 9800 PRO 256 O/C's from OC systems ( got a refund for the Albatros comming back to me...someday...said to allow 6 weeks!!! )
Know Deck is considering the 64 3200+ and that may make more sense in the long run ( half the price )...

Deck if you do get yours first I AM ENVIOUS BEYOND WORDS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Bad thing about getting the 64's my memory now goes to kids..they require REGISTERED !!!! or ECC...


crap.....



~S~
BK

Flame Broiled - Just The Way You Like Em'
« Last Edit: September 26, 2003, 01:56:43 pm by TX-BlackKnight » Logged

~S~
BK

Flame Broiled - Just The Way You Like Em'
TX-BlackKnight
Reserve
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 425


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1 on: September 26, 2003, 01:58:36 pm »

Imagine OUR SERVER running on a 64 or 64FX..Damn......~S~BKFlame Broiled - Just The Way You Like Em'
Logged

~S~
BK

Flame Broiled - Just The Way You Like Em'
Seeker
Former Member
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 354


View Profile WWW
« Reply #2 on: September 26, 2003, 02:06:05 pm »

From what I've read, the AMD64 3200 does not require registered memory, only the FX-51 version.This will definately be what I upgrade to when I get around to doing it. I seriously want one of these bad boys.
Logged

 
TX-Deck
BLACK 3
TX-Member
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 906


View Profile WWW
« Reply #3 on: September 26, 2003, 02:25:15 pm »

Agreed.... the next month for me is some uncharted territory as far as finances go, the wife just finished up her work at the hospital yesterday and is now moving forward with the private practice.   It is co-pay city until the insurance checks start to roll in, which takes about 3 months.  It's gonna be tight, but we'll get there sooner or later.That FX proc is simply way too much for Manford right now.  If I do anything, it will be the 64 3200+.   I'm still considering the Intel option as well.TX-Deck out.
Logged

TX-Deck out.
TX-Deck
BLACK 3
TX-Member
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 906


View Profile WWW
« Reply #4 on: September 26, 2003, 03:24:39 pm »

Just spoke with the wife...The wife:  "Don't do anything rash...."TX-Deck:  "heh.........  heh heh............hehehehehehehhhaaaaaaaaaaa   muahaaaahahahahaaaa!!!!!!"TX-Deck out.
Logged

TX-Deck out.
TX-Zen
BLACK 6
TX-Member
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1138



View Profile WWW
« Reply #5 on: September 26, 2003, 03:28:14 pm »

Don't do anything rash she says....too late Manford-Wife! He's on the move, look out!!!!!You see that look in his eyes...that bleary, frothy, maniacal, wild haired spacy eyed look? ThatsEGV!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Oh no! We're ALL doomed!!!TX-ZenBlack 6
Logged

Black 6
TX-BlackKnight
Reserve
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 425


View Profile WWW
« Reply #6 on: September 26, 2003, 05:46:37 pm »

Forget the FX !!! With the 64 3200+ I can use my memory !!!!http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleID=1470MB $142.82 @ Partspc.com64 $ 432.00 @ xtremegear.comTotal ~$575Decks deal : $499 @ Computer Builders Wharehouse !!!!!~S~BKFlame Broiled - Just The Way You Like Em'
« Last Edit: September 27, 2003, 03:30:07 am by TX-BlackKnight » Logged

~S~
BK

Flame Broiled - Just The Way You Like Em'
TX-Rahman
BLACK 4
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1715



View Profile WWW
« Reply #7 on: September 26, 2003, 08:27:17 pm »

Well I have an AMD XP3000 + now....not the snazzy 64 but faster than my 2200+..... Wink  Regards,TX-Rahman"BLUE 2"
Logged

Regards,
TX-Rahman
"BLACK 4"
TX-Deck
BLACK 3
TX-Member
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 906


View Profile WWW
« Reply #8 on: September 26, 2003, 09:55:03 pm »

Goods are in hand, should be up and running by manana noche if all goes well!(yes, this means I will be flying again.........w00t!)TX-Deck out.
Logged

TX-Deck out.
TX-FlightRisk
BLACK 7
TX-Member
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 715


View Profile WWW
« Reply #9 on: September 27, 2003, 01:14:24 am »

awesome!!!!!!!!!!!!S~TX-FlightRisk Black 3
Logged

S~
TX-FlightRisk
"If my plane is smoking it can mean one thing...
Damn gremlins must be stowed away smoking CRACK again....."
TX-EcoDragon
BLACK 1
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3034


G's Please


View Profile WWW
« Reply #10 on: September 29, 2003, 02:28:51 am »

I wish I had one of those. . i am stuck with this:http://www.go-l.com/desktops/machl38/features/index.htm(ok. . um. . just kidding)S!TX-EcoDragonBlack 1TX Squadron XO
Logged

S!

TX-EcoDragon
Black 1
TX-Deck
BLACK 3
TX-Member
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 906


View Profile WWW
« Reply #11 on: September 29, 2003, 09:11:16 am »

Ummm...    if I had the $4500 to drop down, it might be worth it!TX-Deck out.
Logged

TX-Deck out.
Seeker
Former Member
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 354


View Profile WWW
« Reply #12 on: September 29, 2003, 10:39:31 am »

Here's an interesting article:What 64-bits on the desktop brings youExpanding the world viewBy Charlie Demerjian: Monday 29 September 2003, 07:19AMD HAS been banging the 64 bit drum for a bit now, especially when it comes to games. Starting with showing the beta of some Unreal flavour or another ported to the Hammer line over a year ago, they have been getting louder and louder. Sadly, while the game developers and the software support teams at AMD do understand what 64 bits can do, others don't. The PR and advertising types are the culprits here, and part of the problem is that the general public is just as unaware. In addition to targeting the audience, they are part of it, and technically speaking, most of them breathe through their mouths. What is the problem? All those $#*&$^ ads that say 64 bits give you more FPS, or smoother gaming, or other technical minutia that are almost entirely in the realm of the graphics card anyway.Even the AMD guide to benchmarking the Athlon64 line showed about a 0% improvement in frame rate for parts of 3DMark 2003 on a P4 vs an Athlon64. In the few, mostly older, games that show a difference, is the average user going to notice a jump from 320 to 340 FPS in Quake III? Does anyone still play Quake III? Speed is not the reason to choose a 64 bit processor for gaming.The Athlon64 does bring a lot to the table in gaming, it is fast, but what it really buys you is worldspace. Back in the good old 8 bit days, the primitive wireframe 3Dish games that were around, and they were, had a world space that could be defined in a few large chunks. I really mean 'few'. Flying around, under the best of circumstances, you could wrap the world in a few minutes or less.When the migration went to 32 bits, you could make the world bigger, or you could make it more detailed, but doing both was an exercise in compromises. If you didn't compromise much, the game used up memory like a Brit-hack uses free beer [Cough. Ed.]. Swapping ensues, and adequate performance becomes a distant memory. 64 bits has the potential to address this in 2 ways. The first is granularity. In a 32 bit number space, you can count to just over 4 billion, 4294967296 to be exact, or 4294967295 if you count from 0 like you really should. The 64 bit number space extends that to 18446744073709551616, which even the most casual observer will notice has a lot more digits. With the ability to map position things to the mm level, you get a worldspace of just over 4000km, not bad, but a little limiting if you are flying a plane, and woefully inadequate if you are in a spaceship needing to dock at anything other than a blobby thing with no discernable features.Jumping to 64 bit numbers for mapping, you can have both the mm accuracy, and a detailed space station. That is a huge advantage for anyone who gets annoyed by small, discrete levels that take forever to load. Think about an MMORPG where you can fit a much more detailed world into a single zone, and you are on the right track.The other problem is memory. If you put a full world mapped to the mm level into 32 bit space, you will eat up more memory than a 32 bit CPU can address in anything larger than a split entrance ranch house map. Then comes the dreaded swapping, game pauses, and teed off players. While 2GB of RAM costs just over $300 now, that is as far as you can take a Windows box.64 bit memory addressing lets you base memory capacity on your wallet. Even the most basic Athlon64 FX boards have 4 DIMM slots, leading to 8GB of memory if you feel like maxing your credit cards on 2GB DIMMs. No more swapping, or at least much less swapping.At the Athlon64 launch, there were a ton of games, and a few game developers on display as well. With no offence meant to the Epic guys, I know it was a port, there was only one team who got it, and that was Crytek. Their game Far Cry was on display, and it used 64 bits right. The demo showed the usual lush island jungle with a MWABAG (Man With A Big Ass Gun) running through it. Ho hum. It was very detailed, and smooth, as you would expect from a next generation game about to be released. You could see the leaves on the trees, and the level of detail showed clearly. Then they went into god mode and zoomed out. You could see the entire island, and you didn't lose any detail in the things up close. That is what 64 bit buys you when you 'get it'.This is nothing you can't do with LoD mapping coupled with background loads, and various other cheats, but now you no longer have to. It works right, and you can put things where you want them, how you want them, and they still look right.The down side is that they still take more memory than you can afford, but that is an economic problem, not a technical one. If I had to guess, I will go out on a limb and say that the cost of memory will come down to earth before the next three generations of graphics cards come out. They are the last bottleneck right now, a 64 bit world can hold more objects than a modern GPU can render.Luckily, Nvidia and ATI are working hard on this, and with any luck will surprise us when the chips with names starting in four come out next year. With any luck, my Yule 2004 rant will be bitching about how those slacker TFT makers can't make a high rez monitor to save their lives.
Logged

 
TX-Deck
BLACK 3
TX-Member
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 906


View Profile WWW
« Reply #13 on: September 29, 2003, 11:52:21 am »

Good article, thanks for the post.So far, I'm pleased with the new system.  BK made the recommendation to me and I'm happy to say that it was a good one.   I still feel there is unlocked potential in what my system can do, I'm still running an older Ti4200 Nvidia card, so as soon as I can get the video upgrade I'll be on that boat.Not taking too much time to dive into it yet... here are some benchmarks:Old system (Dual 866 Xeon, 1GB ram, Ti4200)Average 3dMark2001 score:  1024x768 - 6000New system (Athlon XP 64 3200+, 1GB ram, Ti4200)Average 3dMark2001 score:  1024x768 - 12500So... I have an adequate system to get back in action.  Played a couple times over the weekend and the difference is stunning, but I don't think it is anything more than could be realized with a standard P4 2.4ghz system.  I did crank down the resolution on one 3dMark run to 640x480, and saw a whopping score of over 19000+, and during the first demo the FPS shot up over 400fps.   This was slightly cool in my book.XP 64 os upgrade to follow later this week, and we'll see what happens after that.  I'm speculating that the OS will fly, but gaming performance will remain about the same.BK, thanks again for the suggestion, it might not be the ultimate right now, but I think as hardware and drivers get up to speed, I've got a system with several years of life to look forward to.   I'll get with you later this week and see if we can tweak some stuff to make it hop up a little faster.TX-Deck out.
Logged

TX-Deck out.
13thDisciple
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 13


View Profile WWW
« Reply #14 on: September 29, 2003, 12:28:03 pm »

I remember reading somewhere that going to the XP 64 os on a 64bit system and running 32 bit programs caused some performance issues - stated that the 32 bit programs ran slower than if they where on a 32bit OS...Don't know how true this is though...
Logged

Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to: